The Principal Judge owes an explanation to this Court why he had adjourned the case acknowledging a probable strike by Advocates on 20.05.2022. The adjournment by the Principal Judge prima facie amounts to misconduct. No Court ought to take notice of a strike or a probable strike by the Advocates. The directions of the Supreme Court in District Bar Association., Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar Shandilya and others, (2020) 17 SCC 672 read:
"6.6. In spite of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, this Court time and again deprecated the lawyers to go
on strikes, the strikes were continued unabated.
Once this is the position, the action of the Trial Judge in adjourning the case on 21.05.2022 to 08.07.2022 requires to be explained by him, which he shall do through a report for the time being before any further orders are passed. Even otherwise, in a Family Court, the presence of an Advocate is not a necessity, though this Court is mindful of the fact that no meaningful justice can be done in the absence of the learned Counsel for parties.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2850 of 2022
Petitioner :- Premraj Pratap Singh
Respondent :- Alka Singh @ Meenu
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Perused the report dated 21.05.2022 submitted by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Hathras. It is gratifying to note that the trial has progressed
a lot. The Principal Judge owes an explanation to this Court why he had
adjourned the case acknowledging a probable strike by Advocates on
20.05.2022. The adjournment by the Principal Judge prima facie
amounts to misconduct. No Court ought to take notice of a strike or a
probable strike by the Advocates. The directions of the Supreme Court in
District Bar Association., Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar
Shandilya and others, (2020) 17 SCC 672 read:
"6.6. In spite of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, this Court time and again deprecated the lawyers to go
on strikes, the strikes were continued unabated. Even in the
present case, the advocates have been boycotting the courts on all
Saturdays, in the entire district of Dehradun, in several parts of
the District of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar District of the
State of Uttarakhand. Because of such strikes, the ultimate
sufferers are the litigants. From the data mentioned in the
impugned judgment [Ishwar Shandilya v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019
SCC OnLine Utt 976] and order, things are very shocking. Every
month on 3-4 Saturdays, the advocates are on strike and abstain
from working, on one pretext or the other. If the lawyers would
have worked on those days, it would have been in the larger
interest and it would have achieved the ultimate goal of speedy
justice, which is now recognised as a fundamental right under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It would have helped in
early disposal of the criminal trials and, therefore, it would
have been in the interest of those who are languishing in the jail
and waiting for their trial to conclude. When the institution is
facing a serious problem of arrears and delay in disposal of
cases, how the institution as a whole can afford such four days'
strike in a month.
6.7. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioner
that to go on strike/boycott courts is a fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution and it is a mode of peaceful representation to
express the grievances by the lawyers' community is concerned,
such a right to freedom of speech cannot be exercised at the cost
of the litigants and/or at the cost of the justice delivery system
as a whole. To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified
under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Nobody has the right
to go on strike/boycott courts. Even, such a right, if any, cannot
affect the rights of others and more particularly, the right of
speedy justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution. In any case, all the aforesaid submissions are
already considered by this Court earlier and more particularly in
the decisions referred to hereinabove. Therefore, boycotting
courts on every Saturday in the entire district of Dehradun, in
several districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar District in
the State of Uttarakhand is not justifiable at all and as such it
tantamounts to contempt of the courts, as observed by this Court
in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the High Court is
absolutely justified in issuing the impugned directions. We are in
complete agreement with the view expressed by the High Court and
the ultimate conclusion and the directions issued by the High
Court. Therefore, the present special leave petition deserves to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. We further direct all
concerned and the District Bar Associations concerned to comply
with the directions issued by the High Court impugned in the
present SLP in its true spirit. It is directed that if it is found
that there is any breach of any of the directions issued by the
High Court in the impugned judgment [Ishwar Shandilya v. State of
Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 976] and order, a serious view
shall be taken and the consequences shall follow, including the
punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
7. As observed hereinabove, in spite of the decisions of this
Court in Harish Uppal [Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2
SCC 45] , Common Cause [Common Cause v. Union of India, (2006) 9
SCC 295 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 493] and Krishnakant Tamrakar
[Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27] and
despite the warnings by the courts, time and again, still, in some
of the courts, the lawyers go on strikes/are on strikes. It
appears that despite the strong words used by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions, criticising the conduct on the part of the
lawyers to go on strikes, it appears that the message has not
reached. Even despite the resolution of the Bar Council of India
dated 29-9-2002, thereafter, no further concrete steps are taken
even by the Bar Council of India and/or the other Bar Councils of
the States. A day has now come for the Bar Council of India and
the Bar Councils of the States to step in and to take concrete
steps. It is the duty of the Bar Councils to ensure that there is
no unprofessional and unbecoming conduct by any lawyer. As
observed by this Court in Harish Uppal [Harish Uppal v. Union of
India, (2003) 2 SCC 45] , the Bar Council of India is enjoined
with a duty of laying down the standards of professional conduct
and etiquette for the advocates. It is further observed that this
would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that the
advocates do not behave in an unprofessional and unbecoming
manner. Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right to the Bar
Council of India to give directions to the State Bar Councils. It
is further observed that the Bar Associations may be separate
bodies but all the advocates who are members of such associations
are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils and thus,
the Bar Councils can always control their conduct. Therefore,
taking a serious note of the fact that despite the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, still the lawyers/Bar Associations go on
strikes, we take suo motu cognizance and issue notices to the Bar
Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the
further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal
with the problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers.
The notices may be made returnable within six weeks from today.
The Registry is directed to issue the notices to the Bar Council
of India and all the State Bar Councils accordingly.”
Once this is the position, the action of the Trial Judge in adjourning the
case on 21.05.2022 to 08.07.2022 requires to be explained by him,
which he shall do through a report for the time being before any further
orders are passed. Even otherwise, in a Family Court, the presence of
an Advocate is not a necessity, though this Court is mindful of the fact
that no meaningful justice can be done in the absence of the learned
Counsel for parties.
Lay this petition as fresh again on 27.05.2022 along with the learned
Trial Judge's explanation.
Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra, learned
Special Counsel for the High Court, whose name shall be printed on the respondent's side on the next date of listing.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022
No comments:
Post a Comment